Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Magnus Charles Manson, ship's carpenter, Leith, pursuer, having claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 58), from his employers the Forth and Clyde Steamship Company, Limited, Glasgow, defenders, the matter was referred to the arbitration of the Sheriff-Substitute of Lanarkshire at Glasgow (Glegg), who assoilzied the defenders, and at the pursuer's request stated a Case for appeal.

The facts were as follows:—“(1) That appellant signed on as carpenter on board the s.s. ‘Crest,’ owned by respondents, The Forth and Clyde Steamship Company, Limited, on 2lst December 1911; (2) that his wages on board said ship were £6, 10s. monthly, together with his board and lodging, which are valued at 11s. Id. per week; (3) that on 15th January 1912, when appellant was working in the poop of the said s.s. ‘Crest’ in Leghorn Harbour, a shore labourer came down the ladder lighting a cigarette and threw a match down, which fell, still alight, among some shavings on the floor of the poop, setting fire to said shavings; (4) that the fire thus causedlighted appellant's trousers, burning him severely; (5) that appellant had previous to said fire been shifting a barrel of kerosene oil, from which some oil had leaked on to his trousers; (6) that appellant was left in hospital at Leghorn, and did not arrive back in this country until 26th September 1912; (7) that he is still incapacitated as the result of the injuries sustained on 15th January 1912.”

The Sheriff-Substitute further stated—“I found that… (2) the accident to the appellant did not arise out of and in the course of his employment with the respondents. I therefore assoilzied the respondents and found them entitled to expenses.”

The questions of law included the following:—“…(2) Was I entitled to hold that the injury to the appellant was not caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondents within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906? ”

Argued for appellants—The accident clearly arose out of the appellant's employment, for the risk of fire was reasonably incident to employment on board ship. Moreover, the appellant was specially exposed to that risk owing to the conditions in which he was working, viz., amid inflammable materials and with oily trousers. He was therefore clearly entitled to compensation— M'lntyre v. Rodger & Company, December 1, 1903, 6 F. 176, 41 S.L. R. 107; M'Lauchlan v. Anderson, 1911 S.C. 529, 48 8.L.R. 349; Wicks v. Dowell & Company, Limited, [1905] 2 KB 225; Challis v. London and South-Western Railway Company, [1905] 2 KB 154. The case was a fortiori of Murray v. Denholm & Company, 1911 S.C. 1087, 48 S.L.R. 896, for there was an entire absence of any tortious act. As to the meaning of “reasonably incident to the employment” reference was made to Morgan v. Owners of s.s. “Zenaida,” 1909, 25 T.L.R. 446 (sunstroke case); Andrew v. Failsworth Industrial Society, [1904] 2 K.B. 32; Kelly v. Kerry County Council, 1 B.C.C. 194 (lightning cases); and to Warner v. Couchman, [1912] A.C. 35 (frostbite case).

Argued for respondents—The cases cited by the appellant were distinguishable, for in all of them— apart from the cases of Murray and Warner—the risk encountered was reasonably incidental to the employment. That was not so here, for the risk of a lighted match being thrown away by a shore labourer was not a risk reasonably incident to this man's employment. It was not enough to say that because he was working amid shavings and with oily trousers the accident arose out of his employment where, as here, the accident was due to an outside cause. It might have been different had the accident been due to a spark from the ship's fires and not, as here, to the act of a shore labourer. The respondents therefore were not liable— Falconer v. London and Glasgow Engineering Company, Limited, February 23, 1901, 3 F. 563, 38 S.L.R. 381; Burley v. Baird & Company, Limited, 1908 S.C. 545, 45 S.L.R. 416; Rodger v. Paisley School Board, 1912 S.C. 584, 49 S.L.R. 413; Armitage v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company,[1902] 2 K.B. 178; Fitzgerald v. Clarke & Son, [1908] 2 K.B. 796; Clifford v. Joy, (1909) 2 B.C.C. 32; Craske v. Wigan, [1909] 2 K.B. 635; Mitchinson v. Day Brothers, [1913] 1 K.B. 603.